I think all but one of the unfixed adult dogs I’ve seen at the dog park have been pit bull-type breeds or mixes. I’ve never asked why people are keeping them unfixed but if they think that they can make money selling the pit bull puppies, they need to check the competition. Local shelters basically give these dogs away to anyone who will take them for an adoption fee that is way less than the value of the microchip and the vaccinations that come standard with adoption. When your competition’s price is “free” it’s idiotic to believe that you can offer a better value.
Or maybe there really are people out there who are stupid enough to buy a dog when the dog of their dreams is going to be killed in a shelter tomorrow because nobody wanted it.
I see similar. There’s a shelter in my area (just north of Detroit) which- in the last several years or so- has taken in a ton of pit bull or similar breeds/mixes.
A lot of Pit Bulls come to shelters after raids on places where they breed them for fighting.
The fighting dogs often have to be put down, but the puppies are great dogs. Pits are lovely pets, if they haven’t been trained for fighting. You do have to watch them the first few times they meet other dogs, not because they are any more likely to attack, but because if they do attack, their bite is pretty dangerous. Unlike, say a chihuahua.
Chihuahuas are also common as they breed like rabbits and are actually often a rather mean breed, meaner than Pits, actually. Just that their bite doesnt do much damage to a human. Still a lot of chihuahuas are turned in as they do bite.
I did read the book, and that IMO is evident in some local debates about Breed Specific Legislation: “maybe if we ban ‘their’ dogs, they’ll leave too” seems to be what attracts some of the support.
But again the less comfortable aspect of that is that lower class people do tend to treat dogs more poorly and in ways that create more dangerous and more unwanted dogs. If we take a strictly (politically) ‘virtuous’ approach and say no, people of all backgrounds and subcultures treat dogs equally on average (it might take the form of anecdotes like ‘well some yuppies I know are terrible dog owners’, etc), then logically it must be something about ‘pit bulls’. There is more of a tendency for ‘dogs which look like pit bulls’ to suffer from overpopulation and to be involved in dangerous dog incidents*. Science gives no evidence it’s intrinsic to dogs of particular breed let alone just appearance. Ownership is not evenly distributed by race and class. If there’s no race/class correlation with creating too many and/or dangerous dogs, it must be the dogs. But it’s not.
*granted the first statement is more obvious than the second, especially in particular areas. The second is ‘dogged’ (if you will ) by imprecise categorization of breeds in bite incidents. The CDC eventually decided reliable breed info in dog bite incidents just doesn’t exist. Pseudo-science anti-‘pit bull’ sites use media reports then compare to an arbitrarily low estimate of what % of all dogs are ‘pit bulls’. That’s BS, but IMO/IME hard to say ‘pit bull’ type dogs aren’t overrepresented in serious attacks on people, it’s just hard to say how much, and again there’s no scientific evidence it’s intrinsic to particular breeds let alone appearance of mixed breed dogs.
But to clarify that, a dog trained to fight other dogs isn’t any more likely to be aggressive to people than any other dog. By any solid evidence, or logic. Lots of dogs are bred to attack animals of various kinds: we don’t assume they are more aggressive to humans as a result. And making the comparison to little dogs is apples and oranges. Obviously big strong dogs have more potential to hurt people. The question is whether you can predict it based on breed or especially just appearance for dogs of given size and strength. There’s no real evidence you can.
Second there’s typically no way to tell if a dog was ‘trained for fighting’ or even a solid definition of what that would comprise.
For example, our dog is said to have escaped from a fighting breeder but we can’t verify that story, told to us by a shelter volunteer much later. If so she was probably used for breeding which makes sense: if engaged in that cruel sport, this is the dog you’d want to use to make new ones. But females AFAIK aren’t often used as actual fighters. She is extremely aggressive to other dogs, can’t be near them, never off her leash outside. Whether she was ‘trained’ or it’s just in her nature we don’t know. And it’s not ideal, but also not in our opinion a reason she should have stayed in the shelter and been put down. She, now a lazy old lady, has been sweet and gentle with every person she’s ever met. And lots of dogs of all appearances want to make trouble with other dogs, even if few are as formidable as she used to be.
Even if not aggressive to humans, being dangerous around other animals is very problematic, like on walks, escapes or dog parks.
And the dog who is all scarred up is a pretty good sign. In fact at some raids they put down all but the puppies.
Look, i am not saying Pit bulls as a breed are any more dangerous than any other large powerful dog. But Pit Bulls are often trained for fighting and those are indeed dangerous, even if only to other dogs.
Given that the breed identification is pretty meaningless it may be better to state that more broadly in order to be accurate, even if no duh:
Dogs chosen for and trained for fighting, or for their power to intimidate, are indeed dangerous. People who want a dog for fighting or to intimidate currently pick dogs that look strong and Pittish, treat them as you’d think someone who wants a fighting or intimidating dog would, and produce dangerous animals that they additionally often handle irresponsibly (inclusive of failing to neuter them, a big deal both in terms of aggressiveness and in future numbers of dogs that look like them).
I don’t get this one, but it seems very valid, and not just of pits. People seem to think that being a backyard breeder can be a good source of income, or at least a subsidy against the cost of owning and raising dogs.
Sorry to say, it takes more than a matched pair of unaltered dogs to make a good breeder.
I’m gonna go ahead and confirm that. The most and worst bites I have gotten are from those little guys. I think it is more to do with the way they are raised, since they are small, they are not taught good manners, and because they are small, they are terrified of everything and think of everything as a threat. I don’t think it has as much to do with the actual temperment of the breed, and I have met some very sweet chihuahuas.
Jack Russells are a close second, but don’t get me started on Lhasa Apsos.
Agreed. I personally think that we should require a bit more than twenty bucks to get a dog license. You should demonstrate the ability to handle the dog as well, provide adequate training and environment, and require they are altered unless you get a much higher level license.
) by imprecise categorization of breeds in bite incidents. The CDC eventually decided reliable breed info in dog bite incidents just doesn’t exist. Pseudo-science anti-‘pit bull’ sites use media reports then compare to an arbitrarily low estimate of what % of all dogs are ‘pit bulls’. That’s BS, but IMO/IME hard to say ‘pit bull’ type dogs aren’t overrepresented in serious attacks on people, it’s just hard to say how much, and again there’s no scientific evidence it’s intrinsic to particular breeds let alone appearance of mixed breed dogs.